Why Is ACTA Being Negotiated In Secret?

from the and-why-isn't-the-press-asking-about-it? dept

We've already talked about the ACTA treaty, which is being used by the entertainment industry to basically do an endrun around the legislation process for intellectual property, and getting all its wishes encoded into an international treaty, so it can start running around claiming that every country absolutely needs to change its IP laws to "live up to" international treaties. William Patry has been asking why the mainstream press isn't covering this, and it's an excellent question.

"A spokesperson of the European Commission confirmed that consultation with different stakeholders had been on the agenda and would happen over the coming month at the domestic level. Draft text proposals still have not been published, the source said. Several parties contacted pointed to confidentiality agreed on by the negotiating partners."

Patry translates that paragraph accurately as really saying:

"Countries also discussed whether they should actually talk to those who would be affected by the agreement, and agreed that sometime they will, but everything we have done is super-secret because we agreed it would be super-secret."

So why aren't stakeholders invited into the process? Why is the whole thing being negotiated in secret, using notes in discussion with entertainment industry lobbyists but no consumer groups or other business groups who aren't necessarily supporters of more restrictive copyright regimes? And why isn't the press asking these questions?

Reader Comments

The press?

The press started the unnatural corruption of commercial privilege that is copyright in the first place.

They're not exactly the first ones I'd to look to for unravelling the legal mess that's left behind when copyright starts creaking at the seams and the public sees that release from their rusted bonds into liberty is within reach.

The public aren't 'stakeholders' - they're the ones that are bound to the stake that everyone else is holding.

Sorry folk, but you're on your own.

The press look out for themselves.
The government look out for their corporate sponsors.
The media corporations look out for control over communications channels, the raw material they pump along them, and the advertisers that harvest the crop from the opiated masses.

it ain't gonna happen.........

we haven't had a free press in years. several media numpties control most of western media and are more likely to be lining thier pockets if this goes through. they can blow me, they think they have problems now. wait till i can walk past someone and swap my entire movie/music folders in seconds.

Who needs the press?

The more the "Press" ignores things that matter, the more I ignore the "Press." I've got way too many other ways to find out what's going on for any one group to intentionally or unintentially keep me in the dark. I'm sure I'm not in the minority about that.

In fairness to the mainstream press, or at least the small segment of it that's not a wholly owned subsidiary of an organisation that stands to gain rather a lot by the ACTA, we're currently getting on for saturation point for civil liberties stories; there's only so much that one organisation can cover, and I think we can all agree that prioritising this story over 'extraordinary rendition' or the British government's current crusade against the right not to be imprisoned without a trial would be perverse in the extreme.

Re:

That makes a little bit of sense, but it doesn't mean this story shouldn't see the light of day at all. Sure, you have limits on column space, but I don't think there's a "saturation point" for civil liberties stories. Indeed, such a point can't exist, unless we're willing to sacrifice our civil liberties simply because the press finds it boring. You may have reached your saturation point, and are willing to accept come-what-may, simply because you're bored with the subject. I have not, nor will I, reach any "saturation point" when it comes to the erosion of my civil liberties.

The Press

The real answer to the question is this:

Think about the people who read the press for their primary window to the world... people who like their "information" processed, sanitized, editorialized, and served up to them without any active mental or physical process being taken on their own behalf.

The press probably (and rightly?) feel that the reading masses have been sufficiently lobotomized by now to not wish to be upset by controversial issues and stories with words longer than five letters.

Thank goodness for well informed and conscientious public servants looking after our best interests.... ummm, no? well thank goodness at least for excellent government run school systems that teach critical thinking in our youth... ok, uhhh, scratch that? darn it, help me out here... ok, the world is going to Hades in a hand basket but at least it will be college football season, soon! All hope is not lost.

They're doing it again.

From Bruce Lehman's wikipedia page:
Currently, he is President and CEO of the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), a lobbying organization based in Washington, D.C., and is President of the U.S. Committee for the WIPO.

ACTA

Jake, how is that Canadian and Australian newspapers are covering it? What I find depressing about your remarks is that when you read newspapers daily, and I read about 5 hardcopy versions, there doesn't seem to be a saturation point for celebrity gossip, nor for journalists' favorite topic, themselves.

IP Treaty and corporate control

Wow, why are we surprised by this? It's the same story, same tune. The thing that worries me is that some corporate jock will discover a way to claim ownership of the air we breathe, have it legislated and we'll find we owe them our very lives. And when it happens we'll be the last ones to find out about it.